TIME
19th September 2007

http://time-blog.com/middle_east/2007/09/conversations_el_hassan_warns.html#comments

El-Hassan: A Mideast Marshall Plan?

Conversations: Jordan's Prince El HAssan Warns Against "Taking Another Go at Iran"

I shared a lemonade in Cairo last week, on the sixth anniversary of 9/11, with Prince El Hassan bin Talal of Jordan. He’s one the Middle East’s wise men: a deep thinker, prolific author and speaker, and former crown prince under his late brother King Hussein. Still just 60, he’s also that rarity in the Arab world, a top leader who exited office before dying or being overthrown in a coup or a war. Even though he is known for his frank talk, I was taken aback by the depth of his frustration with the “black hole”—his term for the Middle East. He lashed out—at extremists of all faiths, at human rights abusers, at foreign powers who see the region as “a barrel of oil and a gun.”

El Hassan seemed most pre-occupied with the possibility of a U.S. attack on Iran, which he raised repeatedly in the one-hour talk. He warned that such an action would have dangerous consequences: “The whole Iraq situation is going to be thrown out of kilter again, because the Iranians are not going to sit by and watch it all happen,” he said, adding that Arab leaders will be “hard-pressed to face the Islamist militant rise of influence on the street.” “Taking another go at Iran," he said, "may bring about change, but who guarantees it’s the kind of change that we want for stability in the region?”

His solution: A project like the Marshall Plan or a Dayton Agreement, in which the international community, leveraging the U.S.-led military presence in Iraq as well as the area’s oil wealth, acts as a catalyst for developing regional cooperation and stability.

What’s the essence of the problem in the Middle East?

In 1988, we launched a call for a new humanitarian order. We’ve had the knock on effect in the call for the fundamental rights of humanity and of human security. I worked with the concept of developing a racial equality index. Etc. Etc. But this is leading nowhere in this black hole which we call the Middle East. Simply because what’s wrong is that everything is unilateral.

Why a “black hole”?

It has no institutional structure. It has no systemic representation. Anywhere you go in this part of the world, corruption is the first thing that comes to peoples’ minds. What I see is that there was a time when public opinion mattered in this part of the world. Remember, What does the street think? They were hungry, they were deprived, they were marginalized. But they would demonstrate and express their views. Now, public opinion since the Global War on Terrorism, has been contained by the polarity of the confrontation between the state security services and the militants. There have been endless books about this. One of the most interesting is Baroness Kennedy’s Just Law, where she and many others believe there has been a travesty of abuse of human rights by those states that have taken into their mandate in maintaining stability to close down anything and anyone they feel is rocking the boat. This region needs a legal empowerment of the poor, it needs a legal helpline. One assumes the masses are citizens in any civil society. Here the masses aren’t even digits. There is no national information system which includes human economic and resource-based knowledge.

Why can’t we have a supra-national body, supra-national commissions, with international guarantees, no sticky fingers, no ideologues saying “God promised me this, and international legality promised me that”? Remove the brand names, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Egyptian, Jordanian, Turk and say, What is the carrying capacity?

Is the Middle East’s problem too much religion?

Separation of church and state is crucial, if you put it in the right terminology. In this region, you need to elevate a moral authority of Jews, Christians and Muslims above politics. In the context of the management of holy space in Jerusalem, for example. What cuts across that is that there has not been a political or legal solution to the problem. But the longer you spend without a political solution, the more you are hot-housing the extremists who we all claim to fear. They are presenting their own home-grown solutions. The Christian Zionists who believe in Armageddon in our time. Islamists who believe that if things get worse, particularly if there is a strike against Iran, they will take over power.

There are other vested interests. Weapons. Look at the trillions of dollars spent on weapons. If I say that the cost of the Gulf War quoting American figures and accountability reports is $8 billion a month, that’s immediately interpreted as criticism of American policy. All I’m saying is why are a few hundred million not being invested in a Cohesion Fund that improves the quality of life and human dignity? Why do we have hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children who can’t afford medicine?

Who’s to blame?

You can put a lot of blame on old colonialism and new colonialism. But it is a failure of leaders, governments and people in this region to recognize the importance of developing a regional approach and fighting for it. In this region, what matters at the end of the day is oil and weapons. Look at what the World Bank is saying: 100 million job opportunities need to be created by the year 2015. Is there any program that will give us the hope of getting anywhere near that objective? You come to the conclusion that constructive chaos, I think that’s the term, is almost programmed, for lack of an alternative. Nineteen-ninety-one to 2001 was 10 years. A Marshall Plan could have been conceived in those 10 years to win the peace. But here we are still talking about winning the war. The sadness is you almost come away with the impression that what is important is the oil pipelines. The international world looks at this region as a barrel of oil and a gun.

How can the Middle East break out of the cycle?

By leveraging, with the use of the international force community, a series of agreements along the lines of Dayton, where everybody comes to the table and respects a template of “do’s and “don’t’s.” Which means inclusion, which at the moment seems far-fetched because you have the “moderate” countries and the “pariah” countries. But they existed in the Balkans.

Today you have more firepower than you had in the Balkans, and I don’t see any diplomatic leveraging of the regional solution. People don’t want to move from unilateral to regional. It’s still “General Petraeus, and what about the gradual redeployment of forces?” My question in parallel with that is, What about calling upon the peoples of the region to fulfill their dreams? In recognizing what citizenship means, for example. What about a citizens charter that includes a clear call for a Cohesion Fund. If you look at the figures, they are really quite alarming. The Muslim Middle East share of world trade dropped some 75% in the two decades leading up to 9/11, and this is a period when the region’s population almost doubled. We didn’t keep that in mind. At the end of 2006, U.S. spending on Iraq reached $318.5 billion. Recent figures from U.N. indicate that $318 billion would have been enough to pay for the cost of 400 million people keeping from hunger for 13 years.

I’m not talking about escaping into the future. I’m talking about thinking about the future. One of the reasons for the black hole is the inability to think. The mind has atrophied.

How do you shake things into positive effective action?

Rand wrote a paper with a plan called the Marshall Plan in 1941 and the allied powers took it seriously and started implementing it. That’s an example of how ideas are put into practice.

How do you jump start change, by imposing it from the outside?

It is not a question of imposing from abroad or talking of a “new Middle East.” But it’s a question of bringing together a concept group, which I would welcome being international, which says the future of regional stability can be achieved along the following lines.

How do you shake up the leadership of the region?

The leadership of the region, if it actually comes to a strike against Iran, is going to be hard-pressed to face the Islamist militant rise of influence on the street. I think you are going to find a move away from focusing on regional solutions and pacification plans and economic regional plans rather than towards it. At this moment, we are at a crossroads. Either we move forward toward a regional impulse, security and cooperation, citizens charter, social charter, Cohesion Fund, while addressing the hot spots through a resumption of negotiation, which seems unlikely but surely is the civilized light at the end of the tunnel. Or we move towards further confrontation.

Does it require pressure on regimes to liberalize, to allow more participation?

Yes. I think it is not a question of unilateral pressure. It is a question of speaking to them collectively and saying you represent the region collectively, we believe this region is important. There is no concept of a stitch in time. The stitch in time here is to say, before the next upheaval in the region, this is the time to be reflecting on how to develop a regional approach. I want you people to come to a regional conference on the future of the regional. And within the same priorities that worked evidently in the Balkans, and South East Asia. South East Asia witnessed the Vietnam War. Vietnam is now one of the new success stories economically and socially.

How do you measure Bush’s impact on the region?

The blow of 9/11 was enormously destabilizing for the world and Jeffersonian principles. It developed an understandable will to protect American citizens, protect the American way of life, to protect American interests. But the term “you are either with us or against us,” I’ve always asked, About what? I understand, “in the war on terror.” You know my country has been a firm supporter of the United States in the war on terror. At the same time, are there not other issues that need to be discussed? And while we are working against terror, should we not be working for not only our own happiness in our particular oasis, but in redefining regional commons and global commons? Effectively engaging on the region level has not emerged as a major priority.

What should be done in Iraq?

What should be done is to avoid the talk, if it's serious, about what can be done about a new strike into Iran. Because if that is going to happen, the whole Iraq situation is going to be thrown out of kilter again, because the Iranians are not going to sit by and watch it all happen. You and I have both lived in a region where you can within a few days or a few months expect a new war. And this is not the way to live. How many wars? The ‘67 war, the ‘73 war, every decade we have to have a major upheaval.

You brought up a possible strike on Iran several times. Why do you take it seriously?

I think it’s being spoken of in great detail. Everybody including the president himself has said he has given his military commanders instructions to prepare for the worst. That isn’t a mild statement. It is a very clear statement.

What is your concern?

I’ve always believed in not only winning the war but winning the peace. I have no doubt that American military might is capable of defeating any military response on earth. But on the other hand, I don’t really see that this is necessarily...I am living in the region. I am living in the middle of the conflict zone. Anything that lands on Israel destroys my people. I’m not talking about an academic exercise. Compounding the loss of life that has taken place in successive Iraq wars with its neighbors, taking another go at Iran, may bring about change, but who guarantees it’s the kind of change that we want for stability in the region?

What do you have in mind?

The destabilizing of existing of regimes. A rise in a visceral anti-Western feeling in terms of an Islamist movement confronting the so-called moderate regimes, and saying to them, what has your friendship with the West brought you? Other than further suffering? And against the background of the shortcoming of real life expectations of people. In the West Bank, 50-60% of people are below the poverty line, two dollars a day. As much as 80% in Gaza. Seventy-five percent of Iraqi women are illiterate. Some 6.5 million Iraqis are dependent on rations to meet their nutritional needs. Ten million land minds and explosive remnants of war in northern Iraq will take up to 15 years to clear. This continuing destruction, or MAD—mutually assured destruction--whether through convention means or terrorist action, is a scenario that unfolds where the Middle East may indeed become a black hole. You see the dismembering of the whole region into fragmentation, into disparate and desperate groups.

--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo

Today’s Zaman

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=106062

[INTERVIEW WITH PRINCE HASSAN-2]

 Prince Hassan: Turning the page on 1916 is long overdue

 Prince Hassan of Jordan, the grandson of Sharif Hussein bin Ali, the emir of Mecca who led the Arab revolt against Ottoman rule in 1916, has said it is now time to turn a new page in Turkish-Arab relations.

 Prince Hassan, who was the crown prince of Jordan for 34 years from 1965 to 1999, until the late King Hussein's sudden decision in his last days to name his son Abdullah the next king, understands Turkish but is hesitant to speak. Since his mother was born in Emirgan, İstanbul, the prince says he feels closeness to Turkey and the Turks.

Emphasizing that it is now time to put an end to the festering of the wound that was opened by the Arab revolt against the Ottomans in 1916, Prince Hassan notes that the Arab revolt came seven years after Sultan Abdülhamid II was deposed by the Young Turks in a military coup. The prince wants the hateful Arab documentaries against Turks to stop.

Touching upon the rocky relations between Turkey and the European Union, Prince Hassan believes the talk about Turkish distinctiveness in terms of its culture is "nonsense." According to Prince Hassan, Turks have been Europeans for generations.

The following is excerpted from the conversation:

In an article published in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz on Aug. 14, 2006, you say the Jordanian armies fought with the Allies in two world wars. I thought there was no Jordan during WWI, that the region which today is called Jordan was then a part of the Ottoman Empire.

What I meant was the Arab army. That episode takes us back to the Turkish-Arab bitterness. We were accused by supporters of the Caliphate movement of attacking the Ottoman Caliph. But while the Arab revolt effectively started in 1916, if you recall the Young Turks entered Yıldız Palace in 1909.

What do you mean by Young Turks entering Yıldız Palace?

A vacuum was left. The German generals told the Turkish High Command that they couldn't defend a line south of Mosul. Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem were exposed. The idea was to protect and promote an Arab identity, in the same way Greeks and Albanians protected their identity. And then also the Turks fought to protect their own identity. These are the harsh realities of history -- once we study history by analogy, by putting one's self into the shoes of the other, the more likely we are to stop these wounds from festering.

It is still a sensitive issue among Arabs and Turks. While Arabs are seen as traitors by Turks, Turks are seen as occupiers by the Arabs. Don't you think it is high time that both Turks and Arabs turn a new page?

I couldn't agree more. This is absolutely the bottom line. I met the Hizb ut-Tahrir people the other day in Denmark: They asked me if I believe this rubbish of democracy, the pluralism that I keep talking about. I asked them: "Which Caliphate do you want? Do you want an imami-khalifa?" I asked where are the institutions of Khalifa? Is zakat functioning? Do you want the Shar'iah to be implemented, including criminal law?" I mean that when the Hashemites rose up against the Ottomans, they had the Caliphate in mind, but they did not have any other option.

What should be done now?

I think our civil societies should come and start a civil initiative, either through TV programs or documentaries. All of the hateful documentaries should stop, particularly those shown in Arab countries of Arab national heroes (or traitors, seen from a different perspective) being hung from Turkish gallows… I cannot see what this serves. First of all, they are out of context. Secondly, I do not think that Arab nationalism should justify itself with opposition to others. I am not saying that any one nationalism is preferable to another. What I am saying is that our identity should be based on pluralism and respect for others.

What is the legacy of the Ottoman Empire now in the Middle East?

As I told you, the millet system and the elevation of religion over the political sphere were the two most important contributions. After all, the Ottomans did not create a theocracy. People should speak about the Ottoman state; it was not even an empire: "Imparatoriye Osmaniye." Rather, the Ottoman state was a commonwealth

How closely are you following Turkish-EU relations?

Close enough.

What do you think of the widespread belief among Turks that they are being discriminated against because they are culturally different?

I do not accept the concept of cultural difference. It is nonsense. I believe that many Turks today are effectively Europeans and that they have been Europeans for generations. So in terms of cultural differences, if you talk with me about Muslim extremists, well, there are also extremists in Latin American countries. There might come a moment when the Turkish government and its people will decide on the merits of a possible membership, whether to become a member, or whether to enjoy its benefits without being members, as the process now has been protracted.

In my view, perhaps this is totally unconventional or nondiplomatic, but why don't you tell the Europeans, "We have an important foreign policy role to perform in the context of the wider neighborhood?" It is now time to fully understand the role of Turkey as a great stabilizer in its region and not only by its military role. Its role as a stabilizer and as a secular country is extremely important.

Does Arab public opinion follow Turkey's EU process?

They do, but I should say for the wrong reasons. Unfortunately Arab-Turkish relations have not developed as they should have developed. My mother was born in Emirgan and I have a personal affinity with Turkey, but this is not the point. The fact that Muslims are their own worst enemies recalls colonialism and will be exploited by the West. This fragmentation simply has to end.

Do you think an American strike against Iran is likely, probably before the end of the Bush administration?

I do not think so, as three senior American generals have warned against it. As well, Kissinger, Perry, Schulz and Sam Nunn -- they have all have voiced their concern. They even went further, calling for a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction. There are two elements which are perceived as double standards in the region. The first is that the ballot box has not led to international recognition of the elected governments, whether we speak of Iraq or of the Palestinian territories. The second is with the Iranian nuclear capabilities. It does not apply to Israel when it is a proven fact that their capabilities do exist.

The Saudi foreign minister once said that had the West dealt with Israel's initiative to own nuclear weapons it would now be much easier to handle the Iranian case. Do you agree?

The five permanent members of UN Security Council are hypocritically the principal providers of weapons to the world. There have been two new arrivals, Pakistan and India. If you add North Korea, we now have eight nuclear-armed nations. This leaves us with Israel and probably Iran and with the question if the number will be 10. There should be a regional systemic approach in which we can address these issues without any particular discrimination towards this or that country. Comprehensive means just that, including everyone. Why doesn't the Western Asian part of the world have a basic security structure? We have economic cooperation, we have the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, we have bilateral ties -- but there is no integral regional structure for defense. This is an irony because when we were in CENTO, we were accused of being too Western leaning. Now if you are not Western leaning, particularly leaning on America, you are regarded as outside of the civilized world. I am not calling for a pact, but rather am calling for a degree of security, a fund for cohesion. This would be with all the countries in the region, even at some level with the Israelis.

Israeli generals, in speaking with the Western media, argue that they should strike Iran on their own if the US does not carry one out. How would the Arab world react to such a strike?

If the Israelis want to carve out a peaceful tomorrow, to paraphrase Martin Luther King, they should stop talking in this manner. Not only the Israelis but all of the countries in the region. Today, the Gulf countries are spending $60 billion on weapons. Joseph Steiglitz, the American economist, calculates that $3 trillion has been spent on the "war on terror."

The "war on terror" has been widely perceived by the Muslim masses as a war against Islam. How true is this perception?

It is perceived as global war on Islam because the streets are totally under their domination. As far as the protection of holy places, Turkey has played a very significant role, which I sometimes think is underestimated. This role was very clearly the elevation of religion above politics. The management of holy places: in Jerusalem, in Mecca and even in Najaf, where the Sublime Port had a very clear vision and respect for the center of Shi'ism and Shia scholarship. This was done in a satisfying manner.

Today it is a fact that we are facing a phenomenon that I would call the emergence of religious deregulators. We call them terrorists, but they are actually deregulators [i.e., taking the interpretation of religious law upon themselves and away from scholars]. I do not know of any religion or cult that would say "I am justified in killing innocent civilians." These people have privatized religion simply because we have given up consultations on holy places. We should have consultations for 360 days in a year in Mecca between [scholars from the schools of Islamic law] Maliki, Hanefi, Shafi, Hanbeli, Zeydi, Imami, Ibadi. If you can hold a meeting between Hamas and el-Fatah in Mecca, (let's remember Mecca is not the capital of Saudi Arabia and that these people were killing each other only two months earlier), why not accept intermediation between different political and religious entities? Why not pursue it under the moral authority of Islam, in Mecca with the participation of religious leaders in the manner of consultation or shura?

 21.03.2007

 Interviews

SELÇUK GÜLTAŞLI

Today’s Zaman

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=105953

[INTERVIEW WITH PRINCE HASSAN-1]

 Iraq’s break-up will lead to ‘100 Years War’

The prince of Jordan issues a stern warning, saying the fragmentation of Iraq would lead to the 'Balkanization' of the Middle East.

After a keynote speech at the European Policy Centre in Brussels on the "coexistence of civilizations" Prince Hassan Bin Tallal, crown prince of Jordan in the final days of the late King Hussein, spoke to Today's Zaman. Answering questions ranging from the situation in Iraq to his grandfather's revolt against Ottoman rule, Prince Hassan made it clear that the idea of breaking Iraq into pieces, as is circulating in some US and Israeli circles, would be a fatal mistake. The Jordanian prince warned that a possible break-up would play into the hands of Israeli "extremists," making Israel the dominant minority in a region of minorities.

Stressing that he was as concerned as the neighboring countries, i.e., Turkey, Iran and Syria, about the prospects of a possible break-up, Prince Hassan said that the US realized its mistakes but that it was "too late."

Once dubbed the next king of Jordan, Prince Hassan is now one of the leading intellectuals and activists of the Islamic world. While critical of the US for not being prepared to "win the peace," Prince Hassan was also very tough on the late Saddam Hussein. He argued that Saddam had started his own demise by attacking Iran back in 1980. On the US, Prince Hassan stated he thought their biggest mistake during and after the invasion of Iraq was their lack of cultural affinity. By this he implied that the US did not really understand the true currents and cross currents of the country; a mistake that has now proved fatal not only for Americans but for Iraqis as well.

When asked about the possibility of a Shiite belt in the Middle East stretching from Teheran to Beirut and including a large portion of the Persian Gulf, Prince Hassan did not seem too worried, noting that the current president of Iraq is a Kurd.

On the controversial topic of Turkey's right to active pursuit in northern Iraq of Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) terrorists, Prince Hassan lent his support to Turkey, stressing that if it felt its interests threatened, it was entitled to go after the terrorists. Underlining his opposition to an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq, Prince Hassan stated he regretted that the reform process of the Ottoman Empire during the Tanzimat era was derailed by World War I. Being the grandson of the late Ottoman statesman Şakir Paşa, Prince Hassan can understand Turkish but is hesitant to speak it. He said his mother was born in Emirgan, İstanbul.

The idea of splitting Iraq into three -- Kurdish, Sunni and Shia -- has been circulating for a while in the US and Israel. Do you think it could be a remedy?

The definition of Sunni and Shia is an erroneous one, because after all many of the Kurds are Sunni and if we add Sunni Arabs and Sunni Kurds, then we are talking a majority in numerical terms.

Secondly, the sectarian realties of Iraq were contained between 1925 and 1958 by the constitution of the monarchy that was established by my late great uncle King Faisal I on the basis of power-sharing arrangements whereby the central budget was shared in terms of returns equitably by all Iraqis. I want to remind you that since the invasion of Iraq … returns in oil have not been financed in an equitable manner as to be shared by all Iraqis.

Much of the fight continues on the basis of serious mistakes recognized today, but too late, by the Americans, i.e., dissolving the armed forces providing the resistance with such a large number of well-trained fighters, and indeed not securing the weapons stocks, arms arsenals or the opening the Iranian border and then closing it after Iranians had clearly taken advantage of this open border policy. I think as far as the destruction of Iraq, the breakup of the country is not preordained and I don't think it should be self-realizing.

At this point I want to cite the Clean Break paper of 1996 attributed to the conservatives in the US. It seems to me that the concept of pan-Arabism, pan-Islamism, supra-national identity was actually taken to pieces by this paper, arguing somehow that fragmentation was taking place in that part of the world, so let us take full advantage of this. Muslims and Arabs do not need enemies as they are doing an excellent job of destroying each other. Of course this plays into the hands of Israeli extremists that believe Israel should emerge as the dominating minority in a region of minorities or a mosaic of minorities.

I understand you are vehemently against the idea?

I think it would be a disaster; fragmentation of Iraq, fragmentation of Sudan, fragmentation of Lebanon would be the beginning of the end and we are already on a runaway train.

What you mean by the 'end'?

End of the Westphalian system, the end of the Middle Eastern community of states, the beginning of a Balkanization that could lead, in the words of the former Iraqi Defense Minister Ali Allawi, to a new 100 years of war.

You share the concerns of Turkey, Iran and Syria then?

Deeply so.

What do you think about Turkey's warnings that it could go into northern Iraq to chase Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) terrorists?

Unfortunately the right of hot pursuit seems to be exercised by different regimes and governments, in different parts of the earth and at different times. I don't see why Turkey should be any different if it feels that its national interest is jeopardized by the PKK. After all, the Iranian equivalent of the PKK entered Iranian territory and was fiercely routed out by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. There were also confrontations with Syria.

I think this idea of a Kurdish identity developing into a Kurdish autonomy is already stabilizing within the Kurdish region in Iraq. I do not see why it should be taken any further if it has the potential to a bloody confrontation with its neighbors. Cultural self-determination was recognized by the Sevres Treaty in 1920, but I would hope a time comes when cultural self-determination could be discussed at a supra-national level in the Middle East between states but not at the expense of potentially the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Can I conclude that Jordan is equally concerned about an independent Kurdish state?

I cannot speak for the government; I am not an official of Jordan. My view is that World War I prevented the successful implementation of the Millet (National) System and Tanzimat, which was the reform program of the Ottoman Empire. What I do believe is that a commonwealth of Middle Eastern or West Asian people should be based on pluralism and respect for the other, not aggression and the violation of others' rights.

What do you think were the biggest mistakes of the Americans in Iraq?

I do not want to be judgmental about the end of Saddam Hussein's regime. After all this was almost inevitable. The first signs of the beginning of end were when Saddam's presidency decided to take on violent confrontation with Iranians. I never understood what the strategic benefit of that confrontation was. I might have understood that there was some strategic thinking. But that war was the beginning of an attrition that continues today of Muslims killing each other. The killing between Shiites and Sunnis is an extension of that.

Maybe the biggest mistake was the reported conversation between Mr. [Paul] Bremer and Ayatollah Sistani. Of course the two did not meet, but Bremer told Sistani through his intermediary, "This is your opportunity to rise and get power from the Sunnis which was taken from you for 14 centuries." Sistani replies through his intermediary: "You are an American and I am a Persian born in Sistan. Who are we to decide the future of the Iraqi people?"

The biggest mistake, if I may, was the lack of cultural affinity and the absence of a plan to win the peace. If you recall the Marshall Plan, it was envisaged in 1941 before the end of World War II. So it does not come as a surprise to me that the US defeated Iraq, but what comes as a surprise is the fact that nobody thought of the consequences of the war and the steps required to stabilize not only Iraq but also all the region as a whole.

What should be done right now?

Breaking the cycle of violence is absolutely essential. Reconciliation can be a remedy if given a chance; it worked in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, East Timor. In the case of Iraq, I held six rounds of talks with religious leaders; Sunni, Shiite, Christian. In all of them I found the parties most grateful for the opportunity to exchange views. Two bishops told me, "If for only one thing, we want to thank you for 30 years we have not spoken each other."

Bremer was right on one point though: The Ottomans never entrusted the Shiites with authority. Are you concerned that historical pattern is now being changed with the looming possibility of a rise in Shia Islam all over the Arab world?

As far as Iranian nationalism is concerned it should be taken out of the Shia context. After all Shiites started in an Arab context. I am always asked if I am a descendant of the line of Imam Ali, why I am not a Shiite. I reply, "How can the ehl-i beyt itself be a Shiite?"

The appeal of nationalist leaders like Ahmedinejad is, of course, reflected in Iraq. Iranians already say they will use each and every instrument available to them in the Gulf or around the world against US targets if they are attacked. How true this is I do not know. But when the question of Shiistan was raised within the Iraqi Parliament it was Sunni and Shiite Iraqis who opposed the concept. Let's not forget that the current president of Iraq is a Kurd.

Tomorrow: "It is long overdue that we need to turn the page on 1916"

Vatican Radio English Interview with Prince Hassan

2^nd February, 2007

If you want to listen to the interview click here

Putting Globalization on More ‘Intelligent’ Path Unites 2007 Champions of the Earth

Award winners announced on Eve of Governing Council/Global Ministerial Environment Forum

1^st February, 2007

Nairobi, 1 February 2007 - - Seven leaders whose achievements range from chemical safety, sustainable waste management and the greening of sporting events to the conservation of deserts, rainforests and the global climate are to be honoured as Champions of the Earth 2007, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) announced today.

The winners, who will be presented with their awards at a special ceremony in Singapore on 19 April, were named as:

• His Royal Highness Prince Hassan Bin Talal of Jordan for his belief in transboundary collaboration to protect the environment and for addressing environmental issues in a holistic manner;

HRH Prince El Hassan Bin Talal - Jordan

To sustain natural resources for future generations, HRH Prince El Hassan Bin Talal has addressed environmental issues in a holistic manner. In particular, his belief in transboundary collaboration to protect the environment merits global recognition.

HRH has initiated, founded and has been actively involved in a number of Jordanian and international environmental institutions. As President of Jordan’s Higher Council for Science and Technology (HCST), he has emphasized the need for relevant and improved environmental policies, strategies and programmes. HRH has ensured that HCST focuses on enhancing the quality of life of the inhabitants of dryland areas, empowering them to improve their standard of living using available resources without having to change their traditional way of life.

Also under his leadership, the Royal Scientific Society has been active in the field of environmental management and protection, specifically water quality management. H. R. H. has supported global partnerships aimed at ensuring sustainable energy use, such as the Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation, an organization, which has had a measurable impact on sustainable development and which has pointed the way to clean and equitable energy production by sharing capital and know-how.

Other winners were:

• His Excellency Mr. Cherif Rahmani for advancing environmental law in Algeria and for addressing the issue of desertification;

• Elisea ‘Bebet’ Gillera Gozun for pushing forward the environmental agenda in her native Philippines by winning the trust of business leaders, non-governmental organizations and political decision-makers alike;

• Viveka Bohn of Sweden for playing a prominent role in multilateral negotiations and her leadership in global efforts to ensure chemical safety;

• Her Excellency Ms. Marina Silva of Brazil for her tireless fight to protect the Amazon rainforest while taking into account the perspectives of people who use the resources in their daily lives;

• Al Gore of the United States for making environmental protection a pillar of his public service and for educating the world on the dangers posed by rising greenhouse gas emissions;

• Jacques Rogge and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) for advancing the sport and environment agenda by providing greater resources to sustainable development and for introducing stringent environmental requirements for cities bidding to host Olympic Games.

News of the winners comes in advance of UNEP’s annual gathering of environment ministers taking place next week at the organization’s headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya. The risks and opportunities of globalization, in relation to environmental issues, will be high on the agenda of the conference.

Achim Steiner, UN Under Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director, said:”Steering globalization onto a more intelligent and sustainable trajectory requires the commitment of governments, the private sector, local authorities and civil society—but it also needs individuals capable of catalizing change, empowering others and inspiring action”.

“The men and women we are recognizing today are indeed role models who have committed themselves to realizing a more just, equitable and sustainable world. Proof, if proof is needed, that globalization can be sustainably managed if we harness the intelligence, energy and vision so self evident in these Champions of the Earth 2007,” he added.

The awards, presented for the third time, recognize prominent and inspirational environmental leaders from each region of the world. Through leadership, vision and creativity, each Champion has made an impact at the policy level.

The winners will be honoured at a gala event hosted by UNEP, the Singapore Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) and the Singapore Tourism Board (STB), with the support of various sponsors and partners including Asia Pacific Resources International Holdings (APRIL).

On 19 and 20 April 2007, UNEP and the United Nations Global Compact will co-host the inaugural “Global Business Summit for the Environment” (B4E) in Singapore.

Linked with the UNEP Champions of the Earth award event, the Summit will seek to showcase visionary leadership in corporate environmental responsibility.

HRH Prince El Hassan bin Talal

Interview with BBC – John Simpson

“Uncovering Iran: Iran and her Neighbours”

20^th September, 2006

According to Prince Hassan of Jordan: “The populism of Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah is an alternative to civil society in the Middle East.”

“By recruiting the poor and disenfranchised, they are closer to people’s needs than governments are. Which is why they have this enormous following.”

ACTUAL TEXT VERBATIM

John Simpson: Finally, I spoke to another canny observer of the scene. Prince Hassan of Jordan has a remarkable overview of the Middle East. He doesn’t quite share his nephew, King Abdullah’s fears of  a Shiite crescent in the region, though the King himself has quickly retracted that idea, but he does think that if the Americans were to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran, something he regards as at least a possibility, then Iran has nothing much to lose now.

HRH: If, God forbid, the strike does take place, then I would think that the gloves are off in every possible aspect and in that sense I think that Iran is extremely involved in and with the Region, with Syria, with Hezbollah and the way the present regime in Iran has been taking the attitude of ‘bring it on’ is in my view a recognition of the fact that they have nothing to lose because 44% of their population is living at subsistence level, millions are now drug addicts, they feel isolated, they feel sanctioned, and ‘bringing it on’ in the case of Hezbollah proved to them that the bringing together of the Jihadi factions, whether Sunni or Shi’a, has already started.

JS:  Prince Hassan believes that the whole system of governance in the Middle East which has been so corrupt and so unrepresentative in many countries, needs a shake-up.

HRH: What I see is an alternative to civil society. These organisations are actually closer to people in terms of governance, in terms of recognising people’s needs, than governments are which is the reason why they have this enormous following. I meant the very fact that even during the height of the fighting in south Lebanon, Hezbollah was able to make clean water available and to announce a reconstruction programme the minute the fighting stopped, was in itself, something of a miracle. They are actually the substitute for political parties. The reason why we don’t have democracy in this part of the world is that nobody has thought of empowering the poor. It’s not a democracy when you just have group of power-grabbing elites talking about democracy and trying to exercise influence. And that’s what I find so frustrating, the absence of a sense of empowerment of the silenced majority, not the silent, but the silenced majority. So, can we step in with a regional charter for stability and a regional fund for empowerment?

JS: Or is it too late?

HRH: It may well be too late.

Section of programme ends with nay music.

HRH PRINCE EL HASSAN BIN TALAL

 INTERVIEW WITH SBS AUSTRALIA – GEORGE NEGUS

19^th July, 2006

 Is that what it’s ultimately about – the annihilation, whatever it takes, of both Hamas and Hezbollah by the Israelis?  For his perspective on this and any possibility of a cessation in the violence and fighting, earlier this evening, George Negus talked from the Jordanian capital, Amman, with an old contact on these matters, Prince Hassan.

George Negus:  Your Highness, thank you very much for your time.  Can we try and put this whole situation with Israel and Lebanon into some sort of perspective?  One Middle East source said to us today that there is a great air of despondency in your part of the world.  “Things have never looked so bad.  It looks like Israel wants a fight of the final battle”.  Do you feel as despondent and as negative about the situation as that?  That sounds pretty grim.

Prince Hassan:  I would agree with much of that.  In south Lebanon there’s now a movement of Israeli troops reported into south Lebanon and the kidnappings of the soldiers were described by Prime Minister Olmert as an act of war, so we’ve moved from a war on terror into an actual all-out war declared by the head of Hezbollah in south Lebanon and the question is, nobody really knows where the endgame is – that’s why it’s so grim.

The Turks, for example – today were warned by the United States not to enter into northern Iraq to address Kurdish terrorism which has been plaguing them for years and the Prime Minister of Turkey is pleading double standards, so it’s a bad precedent.

George Negus:  You and your family have been involved in this situation for decades now.  You’re saying it’s grim, you’re saying there’s no endgame in sight.  You’ve always been the moderating force in the region – you and the family.  What do you feel at the moment?  Do you think that’s a futile effort?  Is there no point in trying to stop this?  Is it going to escalate?  Are things going to get much, much worse, as we say, before they get better?

Prince Hassan:  It’s gutting to feel…I worked in the Balkans during that bitter hatred leading up to the Dayton Conference and if you recall, the Dayton Conference came too little too late and everyone was advising the Europeans and the Americans that you can’t stamp out terror by military action alone – that’s only power play.  What is important is the diplomacy that goes with it.  What we need here – and for 58 years of the existence of the State of Israel, we have been saying it before and after every war of which we’ve had four or five now – is to know what the political endgame is?  Circling the wagons, ethnicity, self-absorption with religion putrefying civilised society is basically killing moderation.  Centrist voices are simply not being heard.  My fear is that some Israelis on the right wing, in particular, want to make Israel a dominating minority in a mosaic of minorities, rather than a state within the West Asian context in a community of states.

George Negus:  Do you think that this really, in the long run, has very little to do with the three captured Israeli soldiers and more to do with some sort of master plan by the Israelis, with or without American knowledge and consent, to actually change the entire geopolitical face of the region by moving, firstly, against Hezbollah, then maybe against Syria and then maybe against Iran?  Are we looking at the beginning, if you like, not the end, of a master plan?

Prince Hassan:  If you hear the Prime Minister of Israel speaking in the Knesset, he mentions Iran, Syria and Lebanon in one breath.  A couple of days ago one of their ministers was talking about the importance of a superpower taking out Iran and Israel playing the role of a regional superpower in the interim, but, unfortunately, there is no end in sight for a regional structure, as in the Balkans, a stabilisation pact, a cohesion fund.  Nobody is thinking regionally, and it’s all quiet on the grounds of what the United States thinks and does at the appropriate moment – we’re waiting for the Secretary of State of the United States to visit the region, but what is that appropriate moment?  You can’t stamp out a terrorist organisation by military action alone.

George Negus:  At the moment, though, Your Highness, we’ve got this awful situation where a blame game is going on – an eye-for-an-eye game, if you like, who fired the first shot?  Without blaming either side, what should both sides be doing to give us any chance at all of some sort of cessation of violence?

Prince Hassan:  As your own intelligence inquiry, the Flood Report suggested, you cannot stamp out terrorism by power play alone  So, I think that that parallel track to which Israeli ministers have referred, of negotiation over the subject of the return of the kidnapped soldiers, the possible release of prisoners – I think that was coming anyway after the first soldier was kidnapped three weeks ago – the possibility of the return of prisoners might have been a goodwill gesture towards the Palestinian leadership, but, as you know, it’s all a question of saving face, and that possibility was closed by the Hezbollah action.

But I think what the Israelis must do is clearly to recognise that this war is going to continue, if they so state it and their intentions are very clear, into a future which is totally unknown, so there must be a cut-off point because otherwise all Israel’s friends in the world, I think, would be extremely embarrassed to see this whole region incandescent with flames that we can’t quench.

Secondly, I think that it’s always been the equation – Israel’s security requirements on the one side and the Arab legitimate rights on the other, so if we’re talking about living with a viable Palestinian state, some form of recognition of the fact that the peace process, if not entirely dead, is in limbo, but what we have at the moment is a limbo of fear and this fear must be transcended, but with every passing day, the hatred industry is winning.  And, therefore, I call the international community to recognise – don’t just send in international troops, send in also people with the vision to develop a stabilisation pact for this region.

George Negus:  So sending in a UN peacemaking force is just not enough.  You’re saying somebody has got to get together diplomatically and politically, and if you like, bang Israeli and Hezbollah heads together and say, “Let’s see some sense in this.  Put the guns down, both sides.”  Or is that just wishful thinking?

Prince Hassan:  It’s wishful thinking at the moment, because, as we see in Iraq for example, there’s no distinction between the so-called resistance, the Jihadis – they are the types of course, who are opposed to any form of Shia or Sunni working peacefully together – and they’ve been one of the provocations in this whole equation – and between common criminals and what’s happening today in Lebanon is almost a repeat of that situation of lawlessness.

George Negus:  Do you really hold out any hope that this will recede the situation or is the apocalypse we’ve talked about in the past possible this time?  Maybe this could be the spark that draws in other nations and we find ourselves in a World War III scenario.

Prince Hassan:  If we are going to stabilise the Middle East region, the same rules of engagement have to apply as applied in the Balkans, in South Africa – truth and reconciliation, recognition of the rule of law, no double standards, a regional conference to be prepared by wise heads away from the propaganda and the publicity, because if we get into the American domestic elections in November, I don’t think anybody’s going to be interested and maybe that’s why there’s furious fighting to gain positions before that eventually takes place.

George Negus:  Thank you very much for your time, sir.  I hope that next time we talk it is on a more pleasant and positive basis.

Prince Hassan:  So do I.  Thank you, sir.

George Negus:  Thanks very much.

Producer:  Cathy Carey

Text from hhtp://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/

HRH Prince El Hassan bin Talal is President of the Arab Thought Forum, President of the Club of Rome and Moderator of the Word Conference of Religions for Peace.

 >> فى مقابلة خاصة لقناة CNBC الامير الحسن بن طلال

HRH Prince El Hassan bin Talal's interview

on BBC World Service "Have your say"

You can watch HRH Prince El Hassan bin Talal's interview  on BBC World Service "Have your say" by clicking on the link below, then click on "Video - Watch Have Your Say" under: Islam and the West 12 February 2006.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/talking_point_programme/#